oversized filter in a camry 5s-fe

[dnewton3]

I don't know that I forgot anything in my assumptions.

I made the presumption that all 4 filters used the same media, just more or less of it based on height. After all, that's all I could tell that changed. Maybe not? But then if that's a bad assumption for the 51311, is it fair to assume what was in the two filters you had shown?

It still comes down to the math. Let's just get generic for a moment. Assume any two filters, with the same media, but one 20% larger in length. Probably the larger will flow approximately 20% slower in velocity. So maybe it does capture particulate a bit better, but if it were proportional, (i.e. 20% better in capture for the 20% slower rate), then the filter would blind off in exactly the same amount of time. So what would be the point of a larger filter then???

More likely, a 20% larger filter may blind off 2% or 3% quicker in relative comparison, adding say 17% of life, thereby not being directly proportional in gain. But that goes right back to my point that a larger filter takes longer to fullfil any specified capture ratio at a known particulate size.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gary Allan]

So, we should go to even smaller filters ..accept the lower efficiency due to increased velocity of the particles passing through the media..since the duration of use until loading is identical?


How does this mean "better performing"?

 

[dnewton3]

I'm trying to find a mathematical model for your theorem; so far, I can't make it work. To make it work, I need a consistent model that doesn't contradict itself. Answer a few qeustions and I'll either prove you or me right.

Question 1: True or false? In previous posts, does your "filtration triangle" profess that for any given level of filtration, the media efficiency, surface area, and life cycle all have an interdepentdent relationship?

Question 2: True or false? In your theorem in this thread, defining efficiency as the ability to capture more particulate for each pass of an assumed volume, a larger filter will be more efficient?

Presuming you've answered "true" to each question, then there can only be two possible mathematical possibilities; we'll call them P1 and P2. (BTW - if you answered false to either, you've just contradicted yourself regarding other threads you and I have participated in, and this whole exercise is moot.)

P1 is where Q1 and Q2 are "true". The gain in filter media size of question one, being in a direct interdepentdent relationship, provides for a proportional gain in the triangle; the other corollaries would be true as well. Further, question 2 allows for a proportional decrease in filter life due to the proportional relationship of filter efficiency in regard to media surface area gain. For P1 to work in relation to P2, it is correct to say that mathematically, the gain in surface area would be equally offset by the loss of filter life, making a zero-sum gain. Yet in regard to P1, the two statements become contradictory. I.E. - both of your answers were "true", but, they cannot coexist; one of them should have been false. In the end, looking as Possibility 1, since the Q1 and Q2 were presumed to be both true, then the equation cannot be rectified, thereby making P1 false (not true).

Now look at P2. This model allows for Q1 and Q2 to be correct, but NOT in a direct relationship. In other words, the only way you can gain filter life in Q1, but also gain efficiency in Q2, is for the gain in Q2 TO BE LESS THAN Q1, thereby allowing a greater life in the triangle AND greater efficiency in the filtering. This can be mathematically remedied! The only way to achieve this is to have the filter life expectancy (from more media) outpace the relative gain in filter media efficiency (from more media).

Do you agree?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Question 1: True or false? In previous posts, does your "filtration triangle" profess that for any given level of filtration, the media efficiency, surface area, and life cycle all have an interdependent relationship?


True. FL1A filtering to 10um absolute will retire before a FL1A filtering to 20um absolute in a like environment. But I think that you'll acknowledge that it would not mean that the finer FL1A would last half as long. It would load quicker and reach its holding capacity sooner. When one assumes, for the moment, that one keeps a filter in service until it is loaded to capacity, the finer filter will reach that capacity sooner. This is more easily seen in a hydraulic return line. Smaller filter ..less hours of life.

Quote:
Question 2: True or false? In your theorem in this thread, defining efficiency as the ability to capture more particulate for each pass of an assumed volume, a larger filter will be more efficient?


I think that I tried to state that from the other end of it. Lower velocities tend to produce higher efficiency. Particles that would pass through a given media at one velocity ..will not at a lower velocity. A larger filter of the same media composition would tend to have, relatively speaking, lower velocity conditions at all times.

After trying to filter through your constructed argument there ..I think you're assuming DIRECT relationships where they are not mandated to be so. The added efficiency is a passive byproduct with a diminishing rate of return.

Let me offer this as suggestive situation for you to ponder.

Let's say I have a normal FL1A with a 20um nominal media with a 3 gpm flow through it. It has a 8 gm holding capacity. It has a pore distribution between 40um and 10um.

I have another filter with 8 times the surface area ..and 8 times the holding capacity. It can endure 8 times the flow rate at the same performance level on any single pass.

Now with the larger filter, at the same 3gpm flow rate, will enable many particles to merely drop out as sediment ..much like what appears to occur in fuel filters. They're literally "still wells" much like our shop vacs and many such devices that allow stuff just to drop out of suspension where the particles are maintained in suspension only due to the velocity of the medium (air, water, oil). This we will, for the moment, ignore. What we will see is a higher incidence of particles that get embedded just due to surface friction.

..but now we've got 8 times the number of 40um pores that will be more than happy to pass 30um particles. 8 times the pores that will still see more of the lion's share of the flow, albeit at radically reduced velocity. So, as your incidental "snag rate" will increase ..so will your fundamental "pass rate".

So, although more particles will tend to be eliminated as you lower the velocity of any give fluid passing through any given media ..there is a diminishing rate of return. Expand it to infinity and you've got an infinite number of 40um holes that will take forever to clog up.

 

[dnewton3]

I actually think you agree with me, but you don't realize it.

My 1st post (6th in this thread, on page 1) was proposing that a larger filter would last longer, but take longer to reach a desired filtration level. I jokingly called it a "curse". I also stated that in reality, it probably wouldn't make much difference either way.

Quoting you from above: "So, although more particles will tend to be eliminated as you lower the velocity of any give fluid passing through any given media ..there is a diminishing rate of return. Expand it to infinity and you've got an infinite number of 40um holes that will take forever to clog up."

In this statement you agree that the "diminishing rate of return" means there IS NOT a direct proportional relationship of the filter efficiency to the gain in media size. That makes P2 in my above construct correct, and satisfies the mathematical possibility. This means that the gain of filtration efficiency in Q2 is not as great as the loss of efficiency in Q1.

So .........

Presuming all items identical in filter construction, except the size (surface area) of media, then the following is true:

The gain in filtration triangle life (Q1) produces a loss of efficiency that outpaces the gain of filtration efficiency from slower velocity (Q2). Therefore, because the surface area grew disproportionally larger compared to efficiency, there will be more particulate floating past the media, even though the media is more efficient, all in respect to time cycle. So, as I stated on page 1, a larger filter would last longer, but take longer to reach a desired filtration level; i.e. "the curse".

The reality is that the capture ratio of the particulate can probably be best graphed as a non-linear cone (3 dimensionally with respect to time cycle, efficiency, and filter physical properties). The worlds of theorey and reality have once again aligned; mathematics - the universal language.

Gary - you and I have enjoyed many polite pokes at each other, and probably learned a lot from each other, so please take this with the tongue-in-cheek humor I intend: Since I learned most of these conecpts from you, that means mathematically speaking in regard to the principal of association, you've been arguing with yourself!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I actually think you agree with me, but you don't realize it.


Well, in our little tap dance, this could also mean that you're agreeing with me ..and are just realizing it. You appear to need to communicate in a more complicated manner than need be ..and can surely just be posting stuff that I can't read beyond a few twists and turns. I'm easily confused. I'm not a quick thinker and it takes many long hours of back burner pondering to engage in complex concepts and integrate them. That's why you see me continually "restating and qualifying" everything that I say. It's so you can either agree or take exception to it. We then go to the next round and you reconfigure your assault to dismantle that salvo. When there is nothing to dismantle ..you feel that I'm in agreement with you.

See how it works?

Quote:
The gain in filtration triangle life (Q1) produces a loss of efficiency that outpaces the gain of filtration efficiency from slower velocity (Q2).


Simplify ..simplify...simplify. I would have to go back and reread Q1 and Q2 in all of their glory to even understand the assertion. Does this mean that there is no gain at all? You're appearing to imply that it's a waste of time and produces no benefit ...but due to your need to express yourself in this manner makes it difficult to understand what you're saying. I'm sure with your vast education, and (perhaps) experience base, you can cite many examples of where X-metrics of scale don't uniformly apply.

Tell me that you're unaware of any such relationships that produce benefit only to a certain extent?? If you are not ..then concede to your ignorance. If you are, concede to IGNOR(E)ANCE. This aspect of debate will come with maturity. You concede to the unfavorable truth that doesn't advance your position..but minimize it ..and bolster the other truth that advances your position.

There are many such example. Exhaust and intake systems (if we're going to keep in the automotive realm here) are one place where bigger is better only to a certain degree. To discount the benefit of "some" by stating an example of MUCH would be rather disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Gary - you and I have enjoyed many polite pokes at each other, and probably learned a lot from each other, so please take this with the tongue-in-cheek humor I intend:


Oh, your evil grin has been all too apparent

This has been the proverbial peizzing contest that most engage in as young bucks at bars or parties to impress ladies. If it wasn't ..it would not have been engaged in in an "adversarial" manner. This was a debate conducted in classic Roman "in the round" ..where the content was not as important as how one "conducted" the spectacle before the audience. If you've got a trophy to claim, it was in terms of personality and social hierarchy of "displays of intellectual firepower". What occurred is that you successfully regrouped and reversed your defensive position to one where I was on the defensive when you found that your position was, in some ways, indefensible. Here we see the difference between yards allowed and yards gained. Eventually you'll see the difference between dominant and agressive/competitive. I still highly recommend the humanities as a co-development guide to enlightenment.

Quote:
Since I learned most of these conecpts from you, that means mathematically speaking in regard to the principal of association, you've been arguing with yourself!


Go back here:

Quote:
. When there is nothing to dismantle ..you feel that I'm in agreement with you.

See how it works?

 

[dnewton3]

I know that it's more fun sparing with your advesary when the only thing spilled is beer, not blood!

Looking forward to the next topic, whatever it may be, around the corner!